California Ballot 2016 - Propositions 52, 53, 54, 57 and 58
Proposition 52 is designed to force the California Legislature to stop diverting money collected from a fee that is assessed for a specific purpose, to meet general fund needs. That fee is the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee, which was implemented to meet the requirement for the state to provide a certain level of funding to Medi-Cal in order to qualify for federal funds for that vital program.
Supporters of this proposition claim that hospitals agreed to this fee voluntarily. A more accurate reading is that they did not actively oppose the Legislature's imposition of the fee. While it is true that the $4 billion raised by this fee went right back to the hospitals in the form of Medi-Cal payments, as a result of the program another $4 billion flowed into California from the federal treasury in matching funds.
Medi-Cal faces challenges unique to California. Nearly 12 million people are currently enrolled in this program. Worse yet, the federal rate of reimbursement is calculated based on the state's median income. As reported by the L.A. Times in their op-ed piece calling for a YES vote on Prop 52, California gets roughly $1 for every dollar the state spends on Medi-Cal. Meanwhile, states with lower median incomes get more. Mississippi gets $3 for every $1 they spend on their version of Medi-Cal. Without the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee, Medi-Cal would be in serious jeopardy.
Congressman Tom McClintock (R) and those who oppose Prop 52 claim that it doesn't hold hospital CEOs and lobbyists accountable for how these funds are spent. They raise the specter of lavish perks for those CEOs. But these arguments are specious. The facts are that Medi-Cal needs to continue until there is a better solution to the problem of providing healthcare to the needy.
Both the California Democratic and Republican parties support this measure. So do I. I will vote YES on Proposition 52.
* * *
Proposition 53 would amend the California Constitution to require that any revenue bonds involving $2 billion or more would have to be put to a vote of the people.
If the high-speed rail boondoggle of Governor Brown were the only project that would be covered under Prop 53, I'd vote for it in a minute. That is, if we would be allowed to disapprove that particular waste of taxpayer funds, retroactively.
But that's not the case. As the legislative analyst points out, most of these type of bond issues don't rise to the level of needing a vote under Prop 13.
The Los Angeles Times opposes Prop 53. Governor Brown has made campaign commercials opposing this proposition, correctly pointing out that this proposition would limit local control of local projects. I am voting NO on Proposition 52.
* * *
Proposition 54 would improve transparency in the state's legislative process by requiring the following:
* * *
Proposition 57 has two components.
The first is that any juvenile offender (someone under the age of 18) would be referred to a juvenile court where a judge, not a prosecutor would decide if the accused should be tried in the juvenile or the adult criminal courts. The decision to try someone under the age of 18 as an adult should not be at the sole discretion of the prosecution.
The second component of this proposition is more complex. It would allow inmates in state prisons who have been convicted of "non-violent" offenses to be paroled after completing the sentence for their primary offense. Meaning that those who were convicted of crimes where there was a "sentence enhancement" would serve the time for only the offense and not for the enhancements.
One of the reasons that Governor Brown is behind this initiative is that it would help California comply with an order by the United States Supreme Court in 2011 that California's prison overcrowding violated the Eighth Amendment and that the prison population would have to be reduced.
As long as this truly applies to only non-violent offenses, I'm all for it. I'm voting YES on Proposition 57.
* * *
The argument against Proposition 58, an initiative promoting bilingual education in the California public school system is that it is a "trick" to repeal the Prop 227 mandate that all students learn English in our school system.
It ignores the reality that students who enter the school system in kindergarten speaking only Spanish can't survive in an English only classroom. I'm voting YES on Prop 58.
* * *
Supporters of this proposition claim that hospitals agreed to this fee voluntarily. A more accurate reading is that they did not actively oppose the Legislature's imposition of the fee. While it is true that the $4 billion raised by this fee went right back to the hospitals in the form of Medi-Cal payments, as a result of the program another $4 billion flowed into California from the federal treasury in matching funds.
Medi-Cal faces challenges unique to California. Nearly 12 million people are currently enrolled in this program. Worse yet, the federal rate of reimbursement is calculated based on the state's median income. As reported by the L.A. Times in their op-ed piece calling for a YES vote on Prop 52, California gets roughly $1 for every dollar the state spends on Medi-Cal. Meanwhile, states with lower median incomes get more. Mississippi gets $3 for every $1 they spend on their version of Medi-Cal. Without the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee, Medi-Cal would be in serious jeopardy.
Congressman Tom McClintock (R) and those who oppose Prop 52 claim that it doesn't hold hospital CEOs and lobbyists accountable for how these funds are spent. They raise the specter of lavish perks for those CEOs. But these arguments are specious. The facts are that Medi-Cal needs to continue until there is a better solution to the problem of providing healthcare to the needy.
Both the California Democratic and Republican parties support this measure. So do I. I will vote YES on Proposition 52.
* * *
Proposition 53 would amend the California Constitution to require that any revenue bonds involving $2 billion or more would have to be put to a vote of the people.
If the high-speed rail boondoggle of Governor Brown were the only project that would be covered under Prop 53, I'd vote for it in a minute. That is, if we would be allowed to disapprove that particular waste of taxpayer funds, retroactively.
But that's not the case. As the legislative analyst points out, most of these type of bond issues don't rise to the level of needing a vote under Prop 13.
The Los Angeles Times opposes Prop 53. Governor Brown has made campaign commercials opposing this proposition, correctly pointing out that this proposition would limit local control of local projects. I am voting NO on Proposition 52.
* * *
Proposition 54 would improve transparency in the state's legislative process by requiring the following:
- Require that every bill is published in print and online at least 72 hours before each house of the legislature can vote on it
- Require that the legislature make audiovisual recordings of its public proceedings and publish the recordings online within 24 hours
- Allow any individual to record any open legislative proceedings either through audio or visual means and use these recordings for any legitimate purpose
* * *
Proposition 57 has two components.
The first is that any juvenile offender (someone under the age of 18) would be referred to a juvenile court where a judge, not a prosecutor would decide if the accused should be tried in the juvenile or the adult criminal courts. The decision to try someone under the age of 18 as an adult should not be at the sole discretion of the prosecution.
The second component of this proposition is more complex. It would allow inmates in state prisons who have been convicted of "non-violent" offenses to be paroled after completing the sentence for their primary offense. Meaning that those who were convicted of crimes where there was a "sentence enhancement" would serve the time for only the offense and not for the enhancements.
One of the reasons that Governor Brown is behind this initiative is that it would help California comply with an order by the United States Supreme Court in 2011 that California's prison overcrowding violated the Eighth Amendment and that the prison population would have to be reduced.
As long as this truly applies to only non-violent offenses, I'm all for it. I'm voting YES on Proposition 57.
* * *
The argument against Proposition 58, an initiative promoting bilingual education in the California public school system is that it is a "trick" to repeal the Prop 227 mandate that all students learn English in our school system.
It ignores the reality that students who enter the school system in kindergarten speaking only Spanish can't survive in an English only classroom. I'm voting YES on Prop 58.
* * *
posted by me at 5:03 AM
<< Home